Surrender Like a Boy Scout

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke8/3/15
There has been much written about the Boy Scouts of America’s recent acceptance of openly homosexual scout masters. The organization has been raked over the coals by the right and accused of offering only a half-measure by the left. But few appreciate what the BSA has actually done — and the BSA has no idea what it has done to itself.

Scouting has never been just about tying knots and learning survival skills, but about instilling virtue and building character. And part of having character means standing up for what you believe is right.

Insofar as this goes, no boy will find the “reformed” BSA organization a good role model.

Whether or not you agree with the BSA’s recent policy change, this is indisputable. Note that when BSA president (and ex-defense secretary) Robert Gates defended the decision, he spoke of how the ban on homosexual adults was “unsustainable,” said that he had “fear” it would mean the BSA’s demise, and spoke about how one couldn’t ignore the changing legal landscape and culture (we can only imagine what kinds of policies he’d have felt compelled to adopt in 1936 Germany or the 1925 USSR). There wasn’t even a pretense at a moral argument. “Instead, he argues from organizational self-interest — never mind if it is right or wrong…. Duty to God and country? To heck with that — management always has its own priorities,” as National Review put it in a scathing editorial.

Of course, it isn’t hard to figure out that, much like the leper character in Braveheart, Gates is a perhaps proud compromiser; he wants to mollify the sexual fascists while tacitly saying to traditionalists, “I don’t want to do it, you see; we have to — to survive.” Well, there’s a new scout survival skill for you. Perhaps now they’ll have courses in political expediency and realpolitik and merit badges in waving white flags and lying prostrate.

It’s not that Gates is wrong about the culture’s trajectory, the legal challenges or what they portend for the BSA. But the organization was being sued six ways to Sunday 15 years ago and bravely held the line. What’s different today? Sure, the wider culture has degraded further — but so has the BSA’s internal culture.

Lost in this whole debate is that allowing openly homosexual BSA leaders is not movement toward equality — that notion is marketing — but away from it. After all, there have always been homosexual scout leaders, just as there have been those who were adulterers or fornicators. But they generally “kept up appearances,” which, while paling in comparison to actual virtue, is the next best thing. But while the last two groups are still presumably expected to keep it in the closet, the group that always feels compelled to wear its sexuality on its shirtsleeve will be out and “proud” in the bush.

And, really, it wouldn’t even matter now if adulterers and fornicators followed suit. It is certainly true that being “morally straight” (part of the BSA oath) involves more than just sexuality; it is also true that sexuality is an integral part of it. And, obviously, the BSA’s sexuality model was always Christendom’s traditional one: sexuality is to be confined to a married couple (man and woman, by definition), period. Some will now protest, saying that the BSA never dealt with sexuality at all. No, not explicitly, but it isn’t only what’s mentioned explicitly that matters. There’s no such thing as a value-neutral environment. “Values are caught more than they’re taught,” and it is what is assumed that is learned best. If an “out” adulterer, fornicator or homosexual is a scout leader, he’s teaching the legitimacy of the behavior in question in the most powerful way possible: by living it — as someone who is a role model. Moreover, that the BSA allows him to “serve openly” relates a message of organizational acceptance.

So the issue here is the validating of homosexuality in young boys’ minds? Actually, it’s worse than that. Question, how effective is the following message: adultery is a sin, fornication is a sin, polygamy is a sin, but homosexuality? That’s just a lifestyle choice, junior, sorta’ like living on a houseboat.

It’s a what’s-wrong-with-this-picture scenario the dullest student could figure out in a second. Once Scout Master Ken can arrive in camp all joyous and gay talking about the new knot — the one he fancies he’s tied with his “significant other” Lloyd — it’s clear that basically anything goes sexually. Hey, if he can indulge his passions, why can’t I indulge mine? In other words, the acceptance of homosexuality means the complete collapse of the traditional sexual model.

What does this mean for being “morally straight” in general? C.S. Lewis once noted (I’m paraphrasing), “Sex is not messed up because it was put in the closet; it was put in the closet because it was messed up.” And opening that stuffed closet messes everything else up. Similar to how you can’t compartmentalize accepted homosexuality and keep the traditionalist sexual model intact, it’s essentially impossible to compartmentalize widespread sexual vice and keep general virtue intact. It’s as how cancer metastasizing unfettered cannot be kept confined to one organ: vice corrupts the heart, weakens the mind, clouds judgment and creates desire for the justification of relativism (e.g., who’s to say what right and wrong is, anyway? Don’t impose your “values” on me!). This leads to more vice. This is not to say, lest I be misunderstood, that a sexually corrupt people can’t have its virtues. It is to say they can’t be virtuous.

And that is the issue. None of this would be happening if the BSA’s leadership, reflecting moderns in general, weren’t lacking in virtue themselves and hadn’t descended into vice-enabling relativism. Even years ago I fully expected their surrender because I understood that, as Lewis also said, you cannot “make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.” Robert Gates and most of the rest of the BSA leadership are men without chests; they have no heart for the fight because they have no principles, and they have no principles because they started believing not in principles but provisional values.

As far as the BSA’s mandate of creating boys with chests, the organization long had to fight the corruptive wider culture. But now it has collapsed, completely and likely irrevocably, its own internal culture. And for what? A slight reprieve? A stay of execution? Gates has said he didn’t foresee the rapid cultural changes (a tipping point, really) of the last several years. What he also doesn’t see is that he has merely “traded the Sudetenland for peace in our time.” And he will learn that this peace is fleeting with people whose “truth” changes with time, people who tolerate no dissent, honor no compromise and take no prisoners.

The BSA decided that it profited the organization to lose its soul so it could gain the world. Its punishment will be, I suspect, that it will end up without either.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (852 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Surrender Like a Boy Scout

  1. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    Gates is a typical example of the “technocrat” leader who believes in nothing, but “efficiency” and rolling with the tide. This is exactly why one should be against these jellyfish and their “scientific” management of our lives.

    To understand how perverse this recent ruling is, one simply has to ask oneself, would one allow an adult heterosexual male be the leader of a Girl Scout troop?

    As to how the queers have advanced their perversions, I suggest one should always look for and follow the money.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    The basic problem is a lack of moral courage. I had suggested that the BSA should offer to allow openly homosexual scoutmasters — provided the homosexual activists would put up the money to pay for the inevitable consequences resulting from pederasty.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The basic problem is a lack of moral courage.

      Precisely. And if excessive zealotry is a sin, then the opposite is as well. And these Establishment Republican types go out of their way to stand for nothing and to be “accepting” of whatever comes sliding down the cultural milieu.

      But I’ve pretty much given up on people at this point. When I hear supposedly conservative Christians talking about farming methods that “heal the planet” (as I did this weekend), then I’m done. Forget about it. Call me when a sensible person shows up.

      More and more it seems that the life is just a matter of getting various mental tattoos. The tattoos themselves are irrelevant and quite arbitrary. And so I’m getting tired of choosing between them, analyzing them, and attempting to correct them. Time for another viewing of “Dumb and Dumber.” At least Carrey and Daniels make stupid entertaining.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      The basic problem is a lack of moral courage.

      To lack moral courage, one must first have morals. I believe technocrats like Gates are sadly lacking in morals when it comes to public policy. For them, it becomes a matter of numbers, trends, statistics and media coverage.

  3. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The Boy Scouts are now admitting girls. This is another example of the left having marched through the institutions and won. Those who believe in reality must start to fight back vigorously.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      There’s nothing wrong with allowing girls — provided they change their name to something that’s “gender-neutral” — “child scouts”, perhaps. I suspect they’ll have some complications once they start co-ed camping, though the idea will no doubt find favor at Camp Kookamanga.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        There’s nothing wrong with allowing girls

        There’s everything wrong with allowing girls. It deprives boys of their maleness. Boys and girls are not interchangeable.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Interestingly, the Girl Scouts aren’t happy about this. They expect to lose a lot of tomboys, I guess — or girls whose parents don’t like the GSA’s lurch to the left. Fortunately, there are some alternatives now to both, featuring conservative and religious versions.

  4. pst4usa says:

    If you like your country after what the feminist movement has done to it so far; you’ll love it when they finish emasculating all the men. China, come on over, we won’t have two balls left amongst all the remaining so called men to put up any kind of a fight. I suppose this is just the perfect title, Surrender like a Boy Scout indeed.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I was just having the conversation the other day with Mr. Kung, Pat. I said something like, “Normally when cultures become decadent and weak from within, there is usually someone from without who will conquer and put them out of their misery. But would China really want to take over? They’re much better off with that ocean between themselves and us.”

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Who knows? In 1968, I wrote a story for my junior English class in which the peaceniks won the election (a Kennedy-McCarthy ticket). Among other things, they had no Secretary of Defense and passed a law forbidding the US from going to war for any reason. It ended with the US conquered by North Vietnam.

      • pst4usa says:

        I don’t know if it would be China, but they are in need of women for breeding. Their stupid policy of one child did create a huge imbalance in the male to female ratio. (it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature) If it is not china, give it a few more years and we will be invaded by Kim Jong Un’s little sister.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *